Skip to main content

tv   Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  February 23, 2012 6:00am-7:00am EST

6:00 am
this is the eighth story building -- the top floor is where you see everything. the way the bills are friend is for critical infrastructure to prevent massive casualties. who gets to define that? was 9/11 massive casualties? was hurricane katrina massive evacuation? you will wind up with a debate. i have a more fundamental worry. we are now focused massive casualties in critical infrastructure. the chinese today are bleeding us of our intellectual capital. they are sucking the lifeblood out of this country in terms of innovation, research and development, business plan, a source code -- is going on unabated. at one level, it is a national security issue. what about this competitive
6:01 am
disadvantage we have because the chinese have a policy of economic espionage? we do not. if we did, who would pick the winners and losers? we don't choose companies to rework with information wheat gained and the intelligence context. nation states, primarily china and russia have this policy and others to also. -- others do also. we will worry about the massive casualty or protecting a clearance rather than harnessing the information and sharing it in a way we can do the maximum benefit for the nation. as a national security issue, it is a national economic issue and we are not fully embracing it. these bills are necessary but inefficient. >> until we respond, there is no disincentive for that activity to occur. i'm sure there'll be questions on the national security agency
6:02 am
assuming what could be preserved as a greater role not only overseas but domestically. >> if it moves that networks pay its and goes from one side of the globe to the other in less than a second, do we want to empower an essay to empower networks to find bad things? -- do we want to empower nsa to empower networks to find bad things? you can make it illegal to look at content. if you investigate and understand the behavior of these agencies, they do not violate law. make that part illegal and scanning for malware a little . >> i'm sure there will be some questions on that. mr. secretary, but perhaps you
6:03 am
can touch on this -- at the end of the day, we are talking technology but is really about the convergence of human intelligence and technical means when you're dealing with the most sophisticated actors. wouldn't you rather have a source inside one of these organizations than perhaps all the technology to make that happen? our adversaries have probably already done that. >> you are pointing out that it is not a technology issue but it is what i would call counter intelligence. it is about how we look holistic play at how we preserve intellectual property against people who are taking it without our knowledge? sometimes they do because they can connect up over networks. often it is a combination of giving someone a sub-drive and
6:04 am
a laptop or carelessness on the human operators on the machine. they might bring their home device in which is riddled with malware and they want to play music. you have to look at this as a series of problems. one of the biggest mistakes we have made historical is to think there is one solution. you are never going to find one tool. there will be many different tools. every enterprise whether it be government or private is going to be facing some different threats and consequences. what works or is important in one ear will not be very important in another area. remember this -- there's an actual tendency of people who are trying to penetrate a network were still something to
6:05 am
use the cheapest, least effective tool they can and still get away with it. if they have to, there will escalate to a more sophisticated tool but they like to keep the best tools in the box until they really need them. when you drive security up to a higher level, you are forcing the adversary to play with the most valuable tools. once you see a tool, now the advantage shifts because you know what you're looking for. if you recognize it as a managing risk process, you are driving the adversary to have to do more complicated and sophisticated things to get by our admittedly imperfect defenses. it generally raises the level of security across the board and the people in the network can catch more stuff. >> in the cold war, when we were
6:06 am
faced off with the soviet union, the soviet union could not think about design field test are put into operational context any military equipment we did not know about or understand and had countermeasures' built-in before the put it in operation. let's take this to the cyberworld. if the community i came from really does its job,that malware is known before it is ever used. it is just like looking at an advanced fighter or a new submarine or of whatever might be coming our way in terms of a kinetic issue. we can have similar capabilities in the digital world to defend ourselves. is harnessing the capabilities that exist and doing it in a way that is consistent with their values and privacy concerns. >> that is a great point and do we need a check made equivalent as we did in the physical
6:07 am
domain? i think there are some wonderful initiatives that have been mothballed from the cold war. if we can be quick, i want to get some audience questions. >> the way we have tried to do this in our legislation is to think about the cyber issue as a three legged stool with one leg being information sharing and another being the protection of critical infrastructure and the third that we have talked less about is reforming the information -- the federal information security act or fisma. all three of these things should inform one another. if information sharing is working collectively and we identified the threats to our critical infrastructure or identifying vulnerability, and
6:08 am
all three are communicating as they must and should, that kind of information will then be shared more broadly and benefit all those who are not directly implicated in the legislation itself. i would defer on the question of insurance, i would say there are incentives built into this. not all the liability but the liability for companies to demonstrate that they are sufficiently secure. that is an incentive for them to go out and innovate so they can escape the government requirements. >> i thought we were at a different time but we are ok on time. >> in response to your earlier question about the technology information peace. we have heard from everybody that there is no way for us to keep pace with technological change. what we have tried to do is take that to heart and be consistent with what we have set from the
6:09 am
beginning which is that owners and operators should choose their security measures in order to meet the outcomes we are asking them to meet. we are trying to make clear that the government is not directly regulating the dividend -- the design, innovation, product development of our i.t. products while setting these performance requirements that should be the target that people are able to meet. >> let me ask one other question because it affects your committee's jurisdiction. any thing in these bills stymie what we need to do offense of the? >> that is complicated. the best offense is a good defense. >> we will leave it at that.
6:10 am
>> there is no silver bullet out there. even if you get your network up to state of the art, the threat does not stand still. the work is never done in cyber security. we were mindful of the problem as we were drafting the language. if we narrowed the language, it would get left behind. things are moving so fast. we saw this back in the 1970's with foreign intelligence. we have to keep in mind that this bill needs to last 10, 20, 30 years. we cannot be too narrow and our focus.
6:11 am
if you knocked down the disincentives, i think people want to cooperate. they want to talk to their peers in industry. there are disincentives that stop them and if you knock down those barriers, that can be leveraged. >> what about the prc threats? will any of these bills help us there? >> that is exactly what we are shooting at. we're not worried about the kid in the basement trying to hack into the school server to change is greater. this is about stealing intellectual property. >> you often hear that the
6:12 am
chinese and russians have the capability to do these things. the chinese told u.s. debt and that is probably true, they would not be incentivize but they are building a capability. what happens when the capability gets sold to a terrorist? the world will not work with a banking or the flow of money to lubricate the process for the transfer of goods and services. the two bags in new york that clear money clear around 7-$8 trillion per day and our economy is $14 trillion in a year. what backs of those transactions in new york city? nothing. there is no gold or printed money, it is an electronic transaction. what happens when someone contaminates that database? banking will freeze. it will cascade in a waterfall and global commerce will stop.
6:13 am
>> in a footnote, it does not have to be if you erode trust and undermine confidence. that is all the adversary needs to do. >> people need to realize that their money may be at risk. everybody is confident the system works. if you can threaten that confidence like attacking the reconciliation system, you would not have to do it for very long and you would have a major crisis. those of the kind of things that i worry about. we talk about nation states and information. they are building the tools and the tools are not necessarily locked up in a way that they could not lead to a criminal or terrorist group. -- cannot leaked out to eight criminal or terrorist group. >> i see shimon gorman in the
6:14 am
audience who wrote a fantastic piece on intelligence preparation in the battlefield, in this case the electric power and the like. what could the incentive be other than to map out potential targets? i put that on the table for what it's worth. >> getting back to the dhs-nsa relationship, that has to be solid. dhs needs to play in a proper role for domestic activity. with regard to insurance, i am not an insurance bureau and i don't work for financial services committee but we have
6:15 am
talked with insurance providers on how we increase the market's ability to increase cyber insurance. the answer we usually get back as we will get there. the market will take care of itself, they say but we have also heard that actuarial data is extremely hard to get into this area with in this issue because people are loathe to share information. there is a provision in our language regard to the charter that says information on incidents of shared with nysa will be collected and made available -- the organization to make provisions for providing that information for study and that sort of thing. will that create this insurance market? no, but hopefully it will
6:16 am
increase -- fill that apparent need. the 80% solution -- our bill is not comprehensive and it will not solve this problem. it does build a framework in which we can build into the future. the important thing when you hit 80% in this issue is usually 85% of critical infrastructure is under by the infrastructure and 80-90% of all cyber attacks can be taken care of. if we can incentivize improving computer hygiene across the board in the private sector through identifying risks and identifying workable standards, they can then put those in place and improve the federal information security management act and raise the level of high and across the government, we
6:17 am
can theoretically free up some resources to go about that advanced persistent threat from those nations states so we don't have to worry about this low - buzz factor. >> precisely my view on that. >> before we go on to open questions, two other things we have not touched on which we should put on the table. what is the supply chain? how do we deal with the fact that hardware-software is manufactured globally and we have difficulty in ascertaining and certifying the integrity of the hardware and software particularly in the work -- world of multiple mobile devices and wireless transmission? the second issue is a security
6:18 am
dimension. next week, there will be meeting somewhere overseas on an effort to address again the question of internet governance and how we deal with the issue of internet traffic flow and particularly should we move from the current system of icam into one where the u.n. would play a larger role in laying out the roles of the road? the chinese wanted itu to do this. in light of what we have talked about in terms of cyber security, consider what the implications are of the basic rules of the road into a domain like the united nations or a u.n. organization. that has serious economic implications for us and has freedom implications because some countries view the ability to get anywhere globally on the internet as a bad thing and they would like to stop that and
6:19 am
there are security dimensions. part of the challenge of this is -- this is a good start and there are so many more pieces. it is like 10-dimensions chess. >> china and russia have been focused on this approach for quite some time, i will speculate. the arms control works as trust and then verify. they may want this to show that card so they can compromise other capabilities. that would be debilitating to make economically and in national security. >> let me make a comment about information sharing. these satellite nice ideas but bureaucracies will not put information in the system. i grew up in the navy.
6:20 am
i had a great time. the navy's view of the world was we have our own crown forest and airships and she regular ships, why do we need the army and air force? our mental attitude was we were not cooperate with those guys because they are competing with funding we need to build ships. we went to great extremes not to participate in anything joint. the legislature led by senator goldwater said this is not right. we need a joint fighting force, not a navy and air force and an army. after years of debate, i think it took six years, goldwater- nichols was passed. the secretary of defense was against it and it passed and president reagan signed in 1986. we had a little dust-up called
6:21 am
desert shield and desert storm. law was passed that if you fight, you only fight in a joint force. second, if you aspire to the generals and admirals, you cannot be that until you have a joint certification. everything changed. we had the first gulf war because that was -- -- i was the first observer. it is the best thing that ever happened to to the services. it forced collaboration, information sharing, and it changed attitudes and behaviors. i think information sharing is absolutely the key. in the current draft, they don't go far enough to require it in two dimensions -- require it in law and incentivize and rewarded because you engaged in information sharing. >> nothing like promotion paths
6:22 am
being tied to what is here. >> in the department of defense, you cannot be ended admiral are generally less you are certified in joint warfare. >> we've got time for each few questions. please identify yourself before your question. you heard a lot about the backbones and telecommunications in particular. where do you guys sit on some of these issues? >> thank you for putting me on the spot. thanks for your current service, gentlemen. it is important we all collaborate.
6:23 am
we own and operate quite a lot of infrastructure at verizon and sharing with the government is important. this is the focus that we need to move forward. the role of government at setting the example. i think is key. the government is a critical infrastructure just as the power sector and as chemicals and electric. we need the government in this game as a player and a pier and an equal not just as a regulator or overseer. we also need to think in terms of the law enforcement ankle. angle. much of what we see is criminal in nature. criminal aspects is what we fight with. we need law enforcement, we need crime-prevention and that kind of emphasis as much as we need the national security espionage. i would like to see additional
6:24 am
talk there and thank you for the opportunity. >> does anybody want to respond? >> that makes the point i have tried to make earlier which is it is not just one problem. there is a lot of criminality like a frog. fraud. one thing to avoid doing this for every agency to take a particular problems that happen to fit its skill set and make that would cyber security is about. it is not. you cut everything from full- scale land war to making sure you can walk down the street without getting mud and you have to look at this as an entire spectrum. c-span.>> i think you are right about the government needed to be a better partner. we talked to a lot of folks in the private sector who have been breached or had some sort of
6:25 am
cyber incident and that have called the government and were looking for help. the response that god has never been one that has been adequate weather in n thissa, dhs, fbi, it is never what the private sector is looking at. i agree with the three pillars of legislation but the fourth is that the government has to get better and we're looking at things likefisma reform that will allow for hiring or more qualified and competitive candidates, not just entities do dd and nsa that have those stories and can do that. there needs to be a domestic center of expertise. they don't have that expertise right now to realize that so i think that is important.
6:26 am
on the criminal stuff, we hope to add additional pieces to the legislation as we get to the floor and have an amendment process. the criminal code proposals from the get ministration are ones we view as very important and we hope to add them to the base bill and there is some sort of minor disagreement between the chairman and ranking member that we should be able to work out. i am hopeful we can add that these and may be some additional pieces on law enforcement side which is important. >> when you ask that you lead by example? >> both of our bills have provisions that allow the sharing of threat information that pertains to a crime that is a happening, about to happen, or is happening to law enforcement and that is a delicate balance. that is something we want to continue to work on.
6:27 am
you have some similar provisions? >> we have a similar provision but not exactly the same perio. the house process is a bit more fragmented. the task force had members from nine different committees and we only represent two of those committees. there'll be other action by other committees. there'll be oversight and government reform and other committees will probably operate within their jurisdiction as well. >> i would like to offer a quick comment on government activity. i have a high regard for the government work force having observed it over the years.
6:28 am
when it is specific what their mission is, they will do it well. anywhere, anytime war or rescue globally, you called we ,haul./ . that is the whole mind-set. when it is a specific mission of the agency and you are rewarded in the performance of the mission, you will do exceptional work. we have to grapple with the agencies having information sharing or cooperation of the private sector. nsa is frightened to death of ever crossing an alliance that migrate to the private sector. they are not authorized to do so so what they see something coming in today's contest, they are authorized to write a report. then they will call a meeting and start to discuss. how'd we get to the point of moving at the speed with which
6:29 am
we need to move as a specific mission of these players? >> wait for the microphone. it's coming. >> by mac your fellow here. -- i am a senior fellow here. thething that's paris in cold war was having a doctrine. -- one thing that spare us and the cold war was having a doctor in. trine. looking forward, are we in the process of developing some kind of doctrine that approaches enforcement, international or ?omestic use of cyber attack
6:30 am
having a doctrine during the cold war helped us and i don't think i am seeing that right now about your observation is exactly right. we don't. >> there is something impressive about a mushroom cloud. in the early 1950's, we had a big project solarium and we worked through a lot of that to determine our doctrine for nuclear policy. there are many aspects of that in the context of doctrine in -- and the military service. we have not had the debate on the doctrine for cyber defense. it is so insidious, it has crept up on us. it is not broadly understood the magnitude of this issue in terms of how dependent we are of
6:31 am
infrastructure. my own view is that we will do the things we are doing and we have these in formed public discussions and debates but a function will come and we will have something that will cause is to galvanize like 9/11 cause us to focus on terrorism. remember a cole bombing in the 1990's. we've made a policy decision to interpret that bombing in yemen as a crime. we reacted to it as a criminal activity. how shall we react to the chinese capturing the research and development of a company that maybe has invested $1 billion to develop a new technique? is that a violation of law or a national security issue and we have not had that debate yes. >yet.
6:32 am
>> in the cold war, the nuclear bomb issue was remote for most people. it would affect the month there were war but there were not involved on a day-to-day basis. this problem as intimate to everybody and when you discuss the doctrine, what you do it touches everyone from the most sophisticated actress to the kid at home on his pc so people become more alarmed about it. it does not mean that we don't have to do it. we have to sit down and the right way to do it is to figure out the doctrine first and build the legal authorities around the doctrine that permits you to do what you decide to do. >> powerful and well said. i don't think we can answer concretely what an act of war in cyberspace is. half there is a lot of strategy.
6:33 am
>> we don't have a declaratory policy about what we would do. >> i think it is important to distinguish what we can accomplish through legislation and what we cannot. in this case, doctrine and strategy are not ones we can answer in legislation. i will say that those questions have been of very intense interest within congress and we're working very hard to try to move forward with in the executive branch to answering those questions. an example is when general alexander was up for his nomination as commander of central command, the armed services committee slowed down his nomination after he and the department would answer a whole range of questions including giving answers about what cyber warfare is and what deterrent is
6:34 am
in this context and whether we should be looking at a declaratory policy. we are working very much to push the executive branch for but those answers have to come from the executive branch. >> we have time for two more quick questions. we want a student to be able to escape question. any students? havechavon first in the back. -- we haveshavon first in the back. >> i am with "the wall street journal." i want to get more reaction on the panel because of the comment that admiral mcconnell when he said why can't you to nsa scanned a domestic network
6:35 am
formalware? given that this panel looked at this questions and have come up with a different solution, what is your take on that suggestion? it is very direct. >> i think the answer is that it needs to be a sophisticated approach that recognizes that there is a lot of different types of activity we need to be involved in in many different ways for agencies to be involved. there will not be a clear authority within the build n to take ownership. they can lend their expertise and resources and technology todhs and the private sector on
6:36 am
a voluntary basis. that is problematic because it is voluntary. it is a matter of going back and walking the balance between those three poles of security, business concerns, and civil liberties. this is an area where the balance is particularly important. we have looked really closely at defining what is content and what is not for the purpose of information sharing. eventually, we moved away from making that distinction because there are a lot of things that straddle that line are not easily defined as either content or non-content. we may want to track ip addresses for the purpose of on covering a botnet network. we are not rated e-mailed a butn s but an ip address is
6:37 am
considered confidential -- confidential. given the changes within the networks to the technology, the types of information and how they might be categorized change as well. we try to stay away from making that distinction. i think there is an important role for nsa and we need to be created to harness that as we move forward. >> no questions nsa has a unique role. we don't want to trigger the privacy and civil liberties issue. if nsa goes overseas and collect that information and gives that two people domestically and they can use it operational but they can protect folks. verizon has capability when it comes to their network but they need more threat information. >> anyone else? >> i agree with that and the
6:38 am
intent of the bill is to harness the capabilities n capabilitiessa. it is also a testament that senator rockefeller and senator ryan -- feinstein -- we have had many debates on the issue in the outcome is that it should be within the secretary of homeland security's jurisdiction to be the prime facilitator. i think that is a testament to quite a lot of discussion and debate. >> there is a method for getting nsa support and it has been used for years when the fbi needs a level of sophistication. they just submit the request and it gets approved by the attorney general. this could have a with nsa support to dhs.
6:39 am
we don't have to wrestle for that issue. how we capture and codify is a way would you don't have a choice, you have to do the things that are necessary to provide an adequate level of protection in this country. >> last question -- >> one of the things we have seen over the years is that the government has been very resistant to sharing information. on the issues of classification, we have seen issue after issue get classified simply because the government knows it. sources and methods have been debated for years. taking that as and putting them out so people can defend themselves against and also raises the bar makes people have
6:40 am
to use more sophisticated equipment and they've got to pull all their tools out of the tool box. we can back off from all the classification issues, we can get a long way down the road. they fix this problem significantly in canada and other countries where theisp's are required to blockmalware so they have reduced the significant issues. one of the other things we have seen is that from my standpoint of the government, we have never been able to adopt an industrial policy in this country. when we had the year of the spy, the response of the government was to create an attorney general and in national security, we created a national security division visiand then court -- and then we created courts. have an economic
6:41 am
security assistant attorney general and that some mechanism for cyber security where we start using economic sanctions against china and russia even though they are a lot of our debt. they are going to be attacking us, let's use the sanctions against them. i would like to see if thought process of how we get beyond some of those barriers and change the mentality so that we can focus on these things and get the structure in a place where we need to address these issues them up very quickly -- lightning round of -- havedon't think we should an industrial policy of winners and losers. we haves beyond cyberpor lagged behind the chinese. we are not strategic and a broad sense about our security including economic security.
6:42 am
china identifies where the resources are and invest money sometimes in ways we say are illegal but is in the service of a greater vision about protecting their economic base. we are at best intermittent and that is a broader issue than cyber security and goes to the heart of what the government should be doing from an economic and national-security standpoint. >> it is not just china but iran and there are others who have other asymmetric means that may not have the same calculus. i will ask that last lightning round -- it has been said that political forecasting has made astrology acceptable. it is a political year. the bills are there and what will get passed? real fast. [laughter] >> good job.
6:43 am
>> i'm a big fan of the rogers bill. a number of committees are still doing work. there is a lot of gear is a motion in the senate as well. >> nick -- >> i think we expect and hope our bill or form the basis of the upcoming senate and debate. we look forward to negotiate with others who have different ideas. there are lots of things that folks can agree on but we think what ever passes needs to be bipartisan and have some protections for critical infrastructure. >> i think we are really encouraged that we seek common ground between the house and senate and that is a good sign. the way we are working on this in the senate is we will come to the floor and have a fair amendment process where everyone
6:44 am
has a chance to offer amendments that will allow us to figure out where the majority of the senate really is. with that process, there is no reason we cannot pass the bill. >> last quick word -- >> i think there are potentially other bills coming out and we encourage them. >> thank you, before we thank our many panelists, i think recovered an awful lot of territory and let me say a quick thanks to my staff who always do the heavy lifting. thank you for making this happen and thank you to all of you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ ♪
6:45 am
>> today on c-span, the house democratic steering committee holds a hearing on women's reproductive health. a woman whom democrats wanted at an earlier oversight committee will be included. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. the white house also outlined its new internet privacy initiative and we will hear from commerce secretary john bryson and the white house economic county director. >> it is our cause to dispel that which avoids our decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony. or we don't rock the boat
6:46 am
irritate the forces of aggression and this is hogwash. >> we look back at 14 man who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, the contenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> this is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to their proper role in the world but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. >> contenders. >> the smithsonian institution program as they on the national museum of african-american history and culture. here is president obama's remarks at the groundbreaking ceremony. he is introduced by the smithsonian board of regents chairman, france cordoba.
6:47 am
>> is my honor to introduce friend, a scholar, and accomplished astrophysicist, "university president and now president of perdue university and most importantly, a new chair of the smithsonian board of regents and my boss, france cordoba. [applause] >> mr. president, mr. obama, fellow regents had honored guests, good morning. on behalf of the board of regents, i would like to welcome all of you here to this incredible ceremony. i would like to also congratulate the council of the national museum of american history and culture. the museums dedicated staff and its founding director on
6:48 am
achieving this historic milestone. [applause] that we are breaking ground for the construction of the museum's permanent home is a testament to their shared a vision and hard work. in 2003, the regents were honored when the congress passed and president bush signed legislation establishing the national museum of african- american history and culture within the smithsonian. since that time, the regents have made opening the museum our number one priority. the legislation also tasked the regions with a test relevant to our situation today. we were asked to select a site for the new museum. over the course of two years, we listened to a passionate discourse on the museum through public town hall and on the
6:49 am
internet. we consulted closely with the museums council and other smithsonian stakeholders. we considered a number of attractive alternatives but in the end, our decision was easy. we recognized that this story of african-american culture and history is central to the story of america. it is a story we believe can be best told from america's front yard, the national mall. here at the foot of the washington monument next to the museum of american history in view of the capital and within blocks of the white house. sometimes location is indeed everything. [laughter] this site underscores the smithsonian's and the nation's commitment to tell the whole
6:50 am
american story. as a scientist and educator, i was taken with some recent photographs of president obama hosting students at a science fair in the white house. by opening the white house doors to outstanding student scientists, the president sent an important and inspiring message to young americans -- that science and learning are critical to the future of this nation and a top priority for us all. [applause] since 1846, the smithsonian has been opening its doors to students and scientists, historians, artists or those just seeking to learn more about themselves, the nation, and the the world. we are grateful to the president and mrs. obama for their
6:51 am
inspiring support of education, the smithsonian, and this wonderful and important new museum. it is now my great honor and privilege to welcome the president of the united states. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you so much. [applause] thank you so much. [applause] thank you very much. [applause] good morning, everybody. i want to thank france for that introduction and for her leadership at the smithsonian. i want to thank everybody who helps make this day happen. i want to thank laura bush, secretary salazar, sam, my hero, congressman john lewis, wayne clough, everyone who is
6:52 am
made this possible. i am so proud of lonnie who came here from chicago, i want to point out. [applause] i remember having a conversation with him about this job when he was starting to embark on an extraordinary journey. i cannot be more proud of the work he has done. i promised to do my part by being briefed. as others have mentioned, this day has been a long time coming. the idea for a museum dedicated to african-americans was first put forth by black veterans of the civil war. years later the call was picked up by members of the civil- rights generation. by men and women who knew how to fight for what is right and prescribe for what is just.
6:53 am
this is their day. this is your day. it is an honor to be here to see the fruits of your labor. it is also fitting that this museum has found a home on the national mall. as has been mentioned, it was on this ground long ago that lives were once traded. where hundreds of thousands once marched for jobs for freedom. it was here that the pillars of our democracy were built often by black hands. it was a long piece -- it was along the spite of the monuments for those who gave birth to this nathan -- for this nation, those who worked to perfect it. the generation will sometimes remembered difficult, often inspiration, but always central roles that african-americans played for this country.
6:54 am
this museum will celebrate that history. our earliest days have been confined to dusty letters and faded pictures. the time will come when few people remember drinking from a colored water fountain. or boarding a segregated bus. or hearing in person dr. king's voice from the lincoln memorial. that is why what we built here will not be an achievement from our time, but will be a monument for all time. it will do more than simply keep those memories alive. just like the space museum challenges to set our sights higher or the national museum encourages us to look closer or the holocaust museum calls for us to fight persecution wherever we find it. this museum should inspire as well.
6:55 am
to stand as proof that the most important things in life rarely come quickly or easily. it should remind us that although we have yet to reach the mountaintop, we cannot stop climbing. that is why in moments like this i think about my daughter's. i think about my daughters and i think about your children. millions of visitors who will stand where we stand a long after where -- long after we are gone. i think about what i want them to experience. i think about what i want them to take away. when our children look at harriet tubman's shaw or the plane flown by a -- , i do not want them to be seen as figure somehow larger-than-life. i want them to see how ordinary americans can do extraordinary
6:56 am
things. how men and women just like them had the courage and determination to right a wrong and make it right. i want my daughters to see the shackles that bound us slaves on their voyage across the ocean and the sharp glass that flew from the 16th street baptist church and understand that in justice and evil exists in the world. but i also want them to hear and learn about the negro league and read the poems. i want them to appreciate this as not just a record of tragedy, but as a celebration of life. when future generations hear the songs of pain and progress and struggle and sacrifice, i hope it will not think of them as somehow separate from the larger american story.
6:57 am
i want them to see it as a central part of our shared story. a call to remember that each of us is made in god's image. that is the history we will preserve within these walls. the history of a people who, in the words of dr. king, it injected new meaning and dignity into the veins of civilization. may we remember their stories. may we live up to their example. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause]
6:58 am
[applause] >> here is some of what we are covering on the cspan network's this morning. at 10:30 eastern, presidential candidate mitt romney makes a campaign stop in phoenix, arizona. coverage is live on c-span 2 and on c-span 3, a discussion about new state voter id laws with live coverage from the national press club at 10:00 eastern. >> here on c-span, "washington journal" is next. followed by the house
6:59 am
democratic steering committee. then coverage of the world economic forum in davos, switzerland. tucker carlson on the presidential race. we'll talk about the obama administration with rebecca wilkins and we'll talk with loren steffy on the oil and gas development in the gulf of mexico. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on